April 30, 2008

Let's read the transcript of Barack Obama's press conference about Jeremiah Wright. I'll make some excerpts and comments, concentrating on things other than the quotes I read yesterday (which I discussed here):

The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.

This is carefully phrased. He does not say he saw something new yesterday or how big a difference there was between yesterday's Jeremiah and the Jeremiah of the last few years. But you're meant to think that he suddenly faced new facts, so that there is no concession of bad judgment earlier.

Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before.

See how precisely he's implying that he always made correct judgments on the facts he had at the time? (Presidents need to do this, by the way. Ironically, it reminds me of the way President Bush has justified his decisions on the Iraq war.)

I'm particularly distressed that this has caused such a distraction from what this campaign should be about, which is the American people.... And the fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage, for three or four consecutive days, in the midst of this major debate, is something that not only makes me angry but also saddens me.

Oh, how I wish I could have heard the way that feeling was expressed behind closed doors! What an outrageous betrayal Obama experienced! And I would love to have heard Wright's thoughts as he decided to wreak havoc on his protege.

Surely, we'll have a movie someday that will flesh all this out. Jeremiah and Barack. In my screenplay, Jeremiah the main character. He's the one with the fire and the complex problems and emotions, the jealousy that turns him to villainous betrayal.

Back to the transcript, we're up to the Q&A:

Q: Why the change of tone from yesterday? When you spoke to us on the tarmac yesterday, you didn't have this sense of anger, outrage --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. I'll be honest with you: because I hadn't seen it yet.

Watch for a politician's verbal tics. I'll be honest with you. Let me make one thing perfectly clear.

Q: Had you heard the reports about the AIDS comment?

SEN. OBAMA: I had not. I had not seen the transcript. What I had heard was that he had given a performance. And I thought at the time that it would be sufficient simply to reiterate what I had said in Philadelphia. Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just a -- it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that -- that -- that contradicts who I am and what I stand for. And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that -- that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the -- the commonality in all people.

That — that — that.... What sets a man to stuttering? Here I must choose my words carefully. What might he have said that he needed to shape his words not to say? Look at sentences that follow the stutter. Obama is saying that his campaign is framed around carefully composed ideas about bringing people together, and those ideas conflicted with Wright's racialized "world view." Obama is not saying here that the racial critique is untenable only that it is not what he has chosen to present in his campaign rhetoric.

But it's not mere political posturing, and he's mad at Wright for saying it is. Now, why exactly is it not political posturing? Obama does not say that the racial critique of what's wrong with America is false. He hasn't said that. He's said that he's the kind of person who desires national unity — it's in his DNA! — and racial critique must be edited out to achieve that effect.

And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has -- has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

See what I mean? These ideas are not helpful to his agenda. Notice that he does not say that Farrakhan has been an odious voice or even that he's not a great voice, only that the idea of Farrakhan's greatness is not helpful to the country and is not an element that fits the Obama political persona.

Obama makes this point again in a long answer to another question:

You know, after seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard, for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems.

You know, now is the time for us not to get distracted. Now is the time for us to pull together.

And that's what we've been doing in this campaign. And, you know, there was a sense that that did not matter to Reverend Wright. What mattered was him What mattered was him commanding center stage.

Wright has intruded himself on the American public to say the things that Obama believes are not useful to be saying now. In my screenplay, which would give Wright center stage, Wright is a wounded and outraged egomaniac, but he also has righteous anger against the young man who wants to suppress racial critique and who has won favor from white people because of that.

I don't think that he showed much concern for me. I don't -- more importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign and what we're trying to do for the American people and with the American people.

Oh, he's concerned for you. He just hates what you are doing.

And obviously, he's free to speak out on issues that are of concern to him and he can do it in any ways that he wants. But I feel very strongly that -- well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed. I believe they are wrong. I think they are destructive. And to the extent that he continues to speak out, I do not expect those views to be attributed to me.

That boldfaced line is something he did not say in his prepared remarks, as noted above.

[W]hat I tried to do in Philadelphia was to provide a context and to lift up some of the contradictions and complexities of race in America -- of which, you know, Reverend Wright is a part and we're all a part -- and try to make something constructive out of it. But there wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was, was a bunch of rants that -- that aren't grounded in truth, and you know, I can't construct something positive out of that. I can understand it. I, you know, the -- you know, people do all sorts of things.

Now, he is combining a rejection of the racial critique with the insight that it is not helpful to his campaign. And "a bunch of rants" is a harsh insult to Wright, as Obama tries to package him away as a senile old man.

Now, here's an excellent set of questions:

Q: Reverend Wright said that it was not an attack on him but an attack on the black church. First of all, do you agree with that?

And second of all, the strain of theology that he preached, black liberation theology, you explained something about the anger, that feeds some of the sentiments in the church, in Philadelphia.

How important a strain is liberation theology in the black church? And why did you choose to attend a church that preached that?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, in terms of liberation theology, I'm not a theologian. So I think to some theologians, there might be some well-worked-out theory of what constitutes liberation theology versus non-liberation-theology.

Cop out. If he can't understand a black liberation sermon, how can it be preached? He's grasping at the word "theology" to distance himself from the very serious question.

I went to church and listened to sermons. And in the sermons that I heard, and this is true, I do think, across the board in many black churches, there is an emphasis on the importance of social struggle, the importance of striving for equality and justice and fairness -- a social gospel.

Okay. He's saying that whatever "black liberation theology" is, he and other parishioners hear it as a call to action for social justice.

So I think a lot of people would rather, rather than using a fancy word like that, simply talk about preaching the social gospel. And that -- there's nothing particularly odd about that. Dr. King obviously was the most prominent example of that kind of preaching.

Well put. The question is refocused on what Obama's politics are — and whether they are too left wing for Americans.

But you know, what I do think can happen, and I didn't see this as a member of the church but I saw it yesterday, is when you start focusing so much on the plight of the historically oppressed, that you lose sight of what we have in common; that it overrides everything else; that we're not concerned about the struggles of others because we're looking at things only through a particular lens. Then it doesn't describe properly what I believe, in the power of faith, to overcome but also to bring people together.

Excellent! Back to his original theme. People who like to say he's terrible when he's off script should study this passage.

The last question:

Q: You talked about giving the benefit of the doubt before -- mostly, I guess, in the Philadelphia speech, trying to create something positive about that. Did you consult with him before the speech or talk to him after the speech in Philadelphia to get his reaction -- (off mike) --

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I tried to talk to him before the speech in Philadelphia. Wasn't able to reach him because he was on a -- he was on a cruise.

Aw, come on. I've never been on a cruise, but they get telephone reception, don't they? And why was he on a cruise in the first place? Too bad for Obama it wasn't a longer cruise.

Screenplay notes: What happened on that cruise? There is Wright is sitting on his deck chair, pondering his passivity. He's been put out in the middle of the ocean's nothingness, and back home, there's this upstart who's swathing America in comforting nothingness.... He must go back! He must speak! Suddenly, he's running from one end of the ship to the other. Wait. No. That's "Titanic."

So, one of the things that is supposed to make Obama a worthy presidential contender in spite of his somewhat meager resume is his great gift for bringing people together. His almost magical oratorical skill shines the light and inspires people to act reasonably. Ha, so with Wright, he gets angry and frustrated. He denounces and ostracizes him. This sure doesn't sound like the kind of leader of the world behavior Obama keeps promising he would bring to the table. Think of all the whacky, hostile verbiage Bush has had to endure and yet his public responses have stayed measured and diplomatic.

What I don't get is this. Why is Obama's apparent dishonest more compelling or deeper than Clinton's? What makes his temperment or judgement more suspect.

We know that HRC choose political expedience over principle all the time. The gas tax holiday, for heaven's sake, and the embrace of Richard Mellon Scaife, who did much more to destroy American political discourse in the 90's-- damage that's never healed-- than the Rev. Wright. She's got the baby boomer superiority complex which afflicts her generation on the right and left (the belief that they know what is right for everyone) and that generation's sense of entitlement. And Good God, another president who feels she has to show everyone she can man up.

Is it that it bothers you that Obama espouses something too Utopian and that it doesn't jibe with his political activities, so you view it as hypocrisy, while Clinton is not a hypocrite because her actions are consistent with her weak ethical foundation?

It pains me to ask this: Does that mean he's not habitually honest? Or merely that he's been dishonest up to that point.

It's quite plausible that no one in the congregation knew that Wright was dispensing black liberation theology. It's not like Wright started his sermons with "Let me read from Cone Chapter 6 Page 86 Paragraph 3." Although one pastor I had was fond of basing his sermons on articles from Reader's Digest, and even, in one case, from an amusing anecdote from Life in These United States (TM).

Obama said..."I'm particularly distressed that this has caused such a distraction from what this campaign should be about, which is the American people...."

This campaign, Barack, is not about the American people. It's about you - your talents and abilities, your faults, failings, and limitations. The American people aren't running for President; you are. That makes this about you, not them. The American people are not on trial here. You are.

The bottom line is that Obama comes out looking as though he's perfectly sanguine when Wright slanders America and outraged when Wright suggests Obama is a politician.

All right now, come one. People talk about Obamabots. He and Wright planned it? This is like the whole "did Obama give Hillary the finger" thing. Though it was a trick of a camera angle (and oy, having to say that I saw pictures which showed that he was scratching his face with two fingers, though the published finger shows one makes my point I think) the obsessive paranoia Obama's duplicity-- well, should we call it Obama Derangement Syndrome.

What I don't get is this. Why is Obama's apparent dishonest more compelling or deeper than Clinton's? What makes his temperment or judgement more suspect.

Disappointment. Obama positioned himself as pure; we know Hillary is impure. Obama is wholesome Hannah Montana photographed exposing her bra and young cleavage; Hillary is Paris Hilton taped giving a BJ in the back of a limo.

Robt said..."Is it that it bothers you that Obama espouses something too Utopian and that it doesn't jibe with his political activities, so you view it as hypocrisy ... [?]"

It's that he's a self-righteous bottom feeder so blinded by his ideological blinkers as to believe that his opinions are post-partisan solutions; it's that he espouses something entirely fictitious that his own words and deeds (past and present) belie his own belief in.

Fen said..."Why is Obama's apparent dishonest more compelling or deeper than Clinton's? Because Obama branded himself as a "different" kind of candidate. His strength was that he's above of the usual political bs. "

That's exactly right. The problem for Obama with average voters isn't that he's so much worse than the average politician, but that he has raised the bar so much higher and claimed - explicitly and implicitly - that he clears it. The more he looks like a normal politician, the worse his campaign falters.

Really? A bottom feeder? I'm still getting used to blogosphere's schoolyard stuff. I know I have to choose between Clinton and Obama-- but given what we know about Clinton and what I'm learning about Obama, how would you characterize her actions and fictions?

Robt said..."Really? A bottom feeder? I'm still getting used to blogosphere's schoolyard stuff."

How is using a well-established term to describe the proclivities of a politician "schoolyard stuff"? You could dispute whether Obama meets that definition, but it's hardly a casual insult - I called him a bottom feeder, not an asshole. And I did so because every day I see his campaign playing to lowest common denominator liberal us and them divisiveness - "oh, it's all the fault of the evil oil companies / Bush administration / special interests / &c." It may well be "human nature to ascribe the consequences of one's personal choices or one's personal shortcomings to malevolent or insensitive others, to unjust social institutions or practices, or to 'the system,'" Posner, The Federal Courts 17 n.22 (1996), but when politicians play to that instinct and promise them they're going to make it all better (including the suspension of the laws of supply and demand, to judge by both Obama's and Clinton's recent campaigns vis-a-vis gas prices), they are feeding off the bottom.

"I know I have to choose between Clinton and Obama-- but given what we know about Clinton and what I'm learning about Obama, how would you characterize her actions and fictions?"

I don't care about her actions and fictions, to tell the truth. I'm a Republican, I'm opposed to both of them. Ultimately the question isn't whether her actions and fictions are deplorable or defensible - it's whether his are worse. Reasonable minds can differ on that question.

Real Audio of Imus, Kinky Friedman on Obama calling him a phoney. Imus agrees, which is against his new policy of hypersensivity towards the feelings and grudges of blacks, but apparently enough is enough.

I don't care about her actions and fictions, to tell the truth. I'm a Republican, I'm opposed to both of them. Ultimately the question isn't whether her actions and fictions are deplorable or defensible - it's whether his are worse.

Doesn't this negate everything you have to say on the matter? Why does your Democrat-hating opinion of Obama matter?

Is that supposed to be a homophobic comment? First of all, I'm not gay, and, second, even if I were, I sure as hell wouldn't wear ankle bracelets. Do gay men even wear ankle bracelets? You are such a bigot.

Ann, you say: "That — that — that.... What sets a man to stuttering? Here I must choose my words carefully."

As a lifelong stutterer, let me give you a few thoughts on this. Stuttering may--under some circumstances--be a function of trying to choose words carefully. But it can also be caused by finished thoughts actually outracing the physical capacity for speech, or by anxiety about the subject, or the simple difficulty of forming certain sounds in particular sequences.

In grade school I could barely speak in class. In high school I went out for debate and took public speaking as part of my attack on the problem. Through this and other work my stuttering became infrequent and episodic, rather than nearly constant. I eventually had a successful career as a lawyer, in a practice that involved tons of speaking to small and large groups. (No litigation--that was more than I was willing to try.)

Yet the stutter was always lurking somewhere, and would come out at the strangest times. (One of the worst was a lecture I gave at UW Law School on international taxation--a subject I knew very well before an unintimidating audience.)

Obama is a stutterer. I heard him give a speech here in South Carolina, and the light stutter appeared in the Q & A. I've heard it on TV.

Does his stutter in this come from the source you suppose? Possibly. But more probably from something else.

And Martin, they were in the Gambino family who controlled the docks in the 1950's. Albert Anastasia who was the head of the family at the time was memorably murdered in a hotel barbershop by the Gallo brothers and the Snake Persico while getting a shave. His brother Tough Tony was the head of the union at the time. Tony's son in law later was a big backer of Jimmy Carter who really worked hard for him in his first run which was really the last hurrah for mob union influence in elections in New York.

And that's the rest of the story of the conversation in the back of the cab.

He isn't stuttering. He's pausing for thought, because he knows that what he's saying is important to him, and to his Presidential ambitions. He knows that it's going to be quoted and re-quoted and mis-quoted and parodied and excerpted and sound-bited and used in his opponents' ads and plastered all over the front page of newspapers everywhere. He knows that whatever he says here will stay in front of the public for a long time, and he's seen twenty years of your own remarks being used to attack you. So he is, quite understandably, taking his time and picking his words rather than just blurting out the first thing that comes into his head.

I mean, he's well aware that some bimbo on the internet is going to take whatever he says and go line-by-line inserting snarky comments.

I think Obama joined the church because he was a half white guy from Hawaii trying to get street creed in the Chicago black community. Also, I think Obama is a typical liberal who doesn't see a problem with associated with the lunatic fringe like Wright and Ayers as long as it is the left fringe. It not that he agrees with everything Wright or Ayers says or do. It is just that he views them as eccentric members of the team worthy of associating with especially if doing so can get you some where. Obama has lived such an insular life I doubt that he realized how much of a problem his association with Wright was going to cause him once he ran for President. The guy became the darling of the Democratic Party and the clear front runner without Wright being a problem.

Once Wright became a problem, Obama could have just said that Wright was a lunatic and that he only went to his church because of the social good that it did and that he just ignored the crazy things Wright was saying. He could have apologized for that and said that he should have said something and that doing good things in the community do not excuse these kinds of statements. Obama didn't do that because he read his press clippings and got greedy. He thought he could turn lemons into lemonade and use Wright as an excuse to make a larger point about race. It almost worked. Obama's Philadelphia speech was universally praised by the media and seemed to limit the damage from the initial Wright disclosures.

The problem was that the speech forever tied him to Wright. He didn't walk away or in any way apologize or express regret over being associated with Wright. That would have been okay if the good reverend would have gone off quietly into retirement and stayed out of sight. That was never going to happen and Obama should have known better. You don't get to be a millionaire pastor of a church by worrying about your parishioners’ needs over yours or not liking publicity. Wright ate up the attention and started giving more speeches and saying the same crazy stuff. The media who love a good story and a good quote, and Wright if nothing else is always both of those, started following him around and reporting everything he said. Now Obama is stuck. He can't believably renounce Wright after his Philadelphia speech. At the same time, Wright is basking in the attention and will keep in the public eye embarrassing Obama. It defies all credulity for Obama to claim that Wright is different now than he has been for the last 20 years. That is actually an insult to Wright. Wright may be crazy and a hate monger but he is certainly not a phony. In denouncing Wright at this stage of the game, Obama comes across as a disloyal opportunist who is willing to throw his spiritual mentor and pastor for 20 years over the side as soon as the poll numbers tell him to do so. Worse yet, since no one but the most hard core Obamabots believe his denunciation, he stuck looking disloyal while also still being associated with Wright and his views. It is just an unmitigated disaster for Obama.

Well Obama is hooked up with the Outfit in Chicago which has a whole different history and way of doing things than the east coast families. They were much more integrated and multi-ethnic. They often used black front men to run things in their wards while they pulled the levers behind the scenes. The question is if he is aligned with them or the Daley machine which are competing yet cooperative entities in Chicago politics. We need a Chi-town expert like Middle Class Guy to fill us in on the specifics.

Not to give the other two candidates a pass. As Eli Blake has trumpeted, Mc Cain has had some dealings with the boys in Arizona but out West they don't have the juice that they had in the east except for Vegas.

And Hillary is definitely well connected with the Hot Springs crowd descended from Owney Madden through her husband. When Bill's mom was out gambling and hanging out in clubs while he was a kid, who did you think ran them and were in her dating pool? He probably has a bunch of "uncles" he can call on for campaign contributions if for nothing else.

Robt - actually, I'll say this much about Clinton. Clinton is sometimes dishonest and opportunist, but I have the sense that she is fundamentally honest about the substance of her political views. She may aggrandize herself, including lies about sniper fire and misrepresentation of her influence in her husband's administration, but on the substance of her politics, she's been honest. By contrast, the chasm between Obama's more high-flown rhetoric and his more practical words and actions suggests that he has, at a fundamental level, not been honest about the substance of his political views. If he's being dishonest with the voters, that's bad enough, but there's another possibility: it's possible that he's sincere. If that's so, then he's not been honest with himself, which is if anything even worse. Pathological self-serving lying is par for the course for politicians, but self-delusion, the basic lack of self-awareness that it would take for Obama to be sincere, is a terrifying prospect. To me, at least. Whether it outweighs Clinton's failings, well, that's something each primary voter has to decide for themselves, and as I said above, reasonable minds differ on that point.

Hypocrites. Pastor pastor pastor. Thanks for doing all your damndest to maintain US politics in the moronic inferno. Where is your "fisking" of McCain's incoherent Iraq statements of the past 5 years? where is the talk of all his associations (which include real mobsters! If Obama sent birthday notes to mobsters, I bet you'd talk about it).

This disgusting exercise and fixation on SCCCAAARRRy black preachers-- never mind we just sat through 8 years of a presidential administration sucking up to the worst hucksters (gay meth addicts!) and bigots of the religious right-- it's an unforgivable travesty, one which I hope will backfire. But if it doesn't backfire, and Wright is what brings Obama down, a bitterness will set in all across the land. It will build and plot and come rearing back at the hypocrites and purveyors of idiocy, corporate shills, militarists, and racists. And will take the country back. The conservatives were in the wilderness for 30 years after Goldwater...

It is true that Hillary is nothing if not a known commodity. There is one positive effect for her out of this nomination fight, if she somehow wins the nomination. Had she sailed through without a fight, she would have still been identified as the hard left counterpart to Bill. Thanks to Obama and the left's love affair with him, Hillary has emerged from the primaries as a creature of the center and the working class much like her husband. Obama and Wright have given Hillary a Sister Soulja moment. A year ago I would never have beleived that Hillary could run in the general election as a centrist. Now I think she will and she is a much more formidable November candidate than she was.

The Obama-Wright friendship mirrors in many ways the Clinton marriage: attraction and betrayal playing out against a background of expediency. If the Clinton marriage is soap opera, the Wright-Obama thing is the stuff of Verdi. I only hope that in the future some nut like Chavez or Raul Castro doesn't betray the trust and friendship that Obama offers them.

FLS: "It's quite plausible that no one in the congregation knew that Wright was dispensing black liberation theology."

Earlier this year, Obama's church updated their website removing selected items. One of those was the "required reading" selection of Dr. James Cone's, "Black Theology & Black Power". Another item removed was the 12 points of adherence to the Black Value System.

FLS, it is not plausible that any thinking person at that church is not fully and completely aware of the theology of that church. On the contrary, that's why they are there. Some, like Oprah, may find that TUCC is too radical and leave, while others, like Obama and his wife, stay.

Many points here are good and useful, but I think you might be reading too much into the stutter. I think a fair reading is that he misplaced the word that immediately followed the stutter: contradicts. You ever have that, where you have the right word on the tip of your tongue but it takes you a second to think of it? To me that's the simplest explanation for the hesitation.

terry -- From what you have linked to, I see that the black value system exhorts hard work and the pursuit of excellence; cohesive black families and mutual support. Do you prefer black people to be lazy and ignorant, with fathers absent from the family?Frankly I don't see any negatives for society. If assuming personal responsibility be black liberation theology, let us have more of it.

Ok, George W. basically made up his conversion story about walking with Billy Graham on the beach. It was BS. There are a whole host of things that never got covered, and if they did, never approaching the volume that the Wright affair has (have you watched Fox lately? CNN? HOURS of coverage on this issue).

It's getting covered, not because it shows some mortal flaw in Obama's judgement (his fibs and equivocations on this do not even come CLOSE to similar issues with the other candidates) but because the right is TERRIFIED that Obama could win. They aren't worried about Hillary anymore. It's CHARACTER ASSASSINATION and it has nothing to do with policy, governance, or anything substantive. It's absurd. It's disgusting. And if you lend it any credence you are either a rube, an idiot, or an operator. But not someone who cares about building a better country.

If you think Republican governance is what the country needs, why can't you argue for it ON THE MERITS?

If you think Republican governance is what the country needs, why can't you argue for it ON THE MERITS?

Ok, how about I'm not voting for Obama because all he has said to me is he's going to raise my taxes and the whole lot of policies he's proposing is the same liberal shit I heard 20 years ago. Take more from productive taxpayers and transfer to the non-productive ones. That's been going on since LBJ and where the fu** has it gotten us?

How about one of the candidates talk about how they're going to stop spending so much of OUR fucking money? I don't give two shits about abortion, gays getting married or baseball players shooting roids in their asses. How about we quit fucking whining about how much Exxon made and start drilling OUR own oil? OPEC is making more money than Exxon and they control the oil. But rather than disturb some penguin in ANWAR we all have to wait 30 years for 'alternative fuel' while paying $4-8 a gallon. Oh but we have alternative fuel. We can burn Ethanol and let the 3rd world starve. Brilliant.

"It will build and plot and come rearing back at the hypocrites and purveyors of idiocy, corporate shills, militarists, and racists. And will take the country back. The conservatives were in the wilderness for 30 years after Goldwater..."

I think you're completely misunderstanding the situation. Can you not see the distinct possibility that liberals will be in the wilderness for 30 years after Obama? And your vague references to Obama's fellow racists rising up and taking over the country? That'll win some supporters, sure.

Frang, methinks you're a leetle bit over-excited there. As for your claims...1) I don't know the first thing about W.'s walk on the beach, but if you've got proof he was lying about it show it. And as for McCain running around with mobsters, who? Dudes been in office for over 20 years, so I'm betting you've got a photo op he's done with some guy or other who later turned out to be shady, but show me one, ONE (see I can use capitalization too) shady associate that McCain has that's of similar proximity as Obama and Wright.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to choose not to vote for Wright on the basis of his long time friendship with an avowed bigot like Wright, and to question his convenient distancing.

FLS: "Do you prefer black people to be lazy and ignorant, with fathers absent from the family?" That is a cheap, pathetic false choice and should be beneath you. The values, minus the racial affectations, are great values. However, the values are not the issue and you know it.

Replace "Black" with "White" and you have essentially what would be statements of values found on Aryan brotherhood and other white supremacist sites.

Either way is wrong, or should be wrong in post-racial America. We will never get past racial ideologies as long as we promulgate separation and distinctions between the races and some people keep their head in the sand and refuse to debate or even discuss the real issues.

So we agree that the values are race-neutral. Now explain why you think it is ok that TUCC racialized the values. Why are they "Black" values and not everyone's values?

You need more than tu quoque to rescue Obama from this pit o' snakes, Frankglosaxon. First, I think you'll really have to look hard to find someone here who likes George W. Bush. Second, the last time I looked, most Obama supporters don't think Bush turned out so well, so do you really want to point to him and say "you shouldn't worry about Obama's distortions because Bush distorted stuff too, and look how he turned out"? I don't see how that helps your case.

- FLS, no he isn't implying he's not been honest before. It's just something one says when we're trying to RE-emphasise that we're being as sincere as we can, at a given moment.

- Halojones-fan, weak and (I never fling this epithet around like so many women do) sexist. Take a hike.

- David, thanks for the insight on stuttering. Dr. Louis Grieg, George VI's physician, helped him to control his awful stuttering with breathing exercises. I personally think it's a control mechanism to self-censor oneself due to not being confident. I only stutter when I'm on the phone, under stress.

Now, my thoughts:

If Obama once derided Giuliani that every time the latter opens his mouth it's, "Giuliani verb 9/11" (which was genius), then he's done two better and taken away the noun and verb, leaving the just predicate:

Distraction

He answers everything as if he's being distracted from his own lofty goals to elevate the political dialogue we're trying to have, through his candidacy, indeed, through his very person.

Not only is this part of his own arrogance (which I don't begrudge him, I know full well people seeking the US Presidency are by definition, arrogant), but because it is so compulsive, it is becoming knee-jerk and worst of all, condenscending.

You're either a benefit to the country, or a distraction.

This is a new-fangled take on the leftist mantra, "you're either part of the solution, or part of the problem".

He usually saves this for situational problems, such as the Wright Saga (which if Ann uses it as the title of her play on the noxious Reverend, I claim royalties) or Bittergate, but the message is unmistakeable.

After 8 years of President Bush's smirking, wheezing, snuffling, and inability to think on his feet past two sentences, some may welcome these reactions of Senator Obama.

But I've noticed, the longer he speaks, the more he reveals about himself no matter how precise his terminology. He's the anti-Bill Clinton that way, and if successful, he'll be the Velcro President.

On a personal note, it's become clear to him that you can't play both sides of the aisle anymore. You can't try to ingratiate yourself with black racists, and demagogues, and expect to be given a pass by other Americans, because society understands it's part of the black experience to be so surrounded.

You know how Obama says that after he saw Wright's performance he got angry as opposed to just reading the transcript.

Well hell-my computer crashes when I watch video links on Althouse and I did not See Scalia.

So ya that played way differently in sight-so to speak. I saw a clip of it on MSNBC-but ghee now I wonder if I saw the whole interview if I'd go back to cutting Scalia more slack.

In Scalia's defense though if I had to stare at Leslie Stahl's dangling red earrings that matched her garish lipstick while she snarled her yellowish fangs at me-I might have got a bit too crotchity too.

terry -- if you substitute "white" for black, the White Value System would sound supremist and arrogant, because that is our society's standard. The Black Value System does not send a message of black supremacy but attempts to achieve black adequacy. The black community is not robust; black families are broken, the black work ethic is not the standard all others try to achieve, etc. (Which reminds me: Do Catholics resent reference to the Protestant work ethic?) The Black Value System exhorts blacks to achieve parity.

So McCain can send birthday wishes to mobsters and no one bats an eye; he and Hillary both can show the poorest judgment imaginable on the most serious policy question of our time, the Iraq war-- and somehow Rev. Wright is all that matters. McCain has done backflips on tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, immigration, gun control, the confederate flag, torture, public financing, and his own anti-earmark rhetoric, yet Obama's disavowal of Wright comes too late, or isn't sincere enough.

The UCC isn't the KKK. Wright may be obnoxious but he's not a "bigot." His tolerance for gays, his charity work (30 years working with people in need-- how many years you got?)-- more than makes up for his bombast, in my view.

p.s. Hoosier Daddy: At least tax-and-spend liberals aren't funding tax cuts and a war ON CREDIT TO THE BANK OF CHINA. The Bush administration has taken a lien out on the future prosperity of the country for short term gain. Your ideology finds no reflection in the Republican way of governing.

franglosaxon said..."[McCain] and Hillary both can show the poorest judgment imaginable on the most serious policy question of our time, the Iraq war-- and somehow Rev. Wright is all that matters."

Obama and Clinton both want to set a timetable for withdrawing, which displays not only poor judgment of America's best interests, but almost as bad, deliberately bloodthirsty and callous dismissal of the sure consequences for the Iraqi people.

Of course Wright isn't "all that matters"; indeed, Wright himself doesn't matter at all. What matters is what we learn about Barack Obama through his associative choices.

Correct. It isn't sincere because it comes long after all the damning evidence was in, after Obama had refused to disavow him for the damning remarks, and only after Wright turned his fire on Obama rather than America. The message is loud and clear: Obama is more worried about attacks on himself than on his country. That's a perfectly reasonable position for anyone who isn't seeking elected office to take.

"The UCC isn't the KKK. Wright may be obnoxious but he's not a 'bigot.'"

Only in a dispatch from leftworld could we find what appears to be the contention that a "bigot" is the worst thing a person can be after actual membership of the KKK.

When I said that you needed more than tu quoque, I didn't mean you needed a different person to aim it at.

do you really want to point to him and say "you shouldn't worry about Obama's distortions because Bush distorted stuff too, and look how he turned out"? I don't see how that helps your case.

Yeah, I look forward to seeing those "OBAMA: NO WORSE THAN BUSH" bumper stickers on Democrats' cars.

I think a lot of left-wingers just don't get the fact that a lot of the people who voted for Bush did so not because they thought he was a good choice for President, but because they thought Gore and/or Kerry were worse.

He's the anti-Bill Clinton that wayNo, they're much the same. Bush is the anti-Clinton. Bill and BHO are fine set speakers of banality (Clinton in 92 said "change" every third word), but reveal their characters extemporaneously, if you know the code and can parse honestly.

No, its views are less coherent. The UCC doesn't exercise content-control over its affiliated churches like, say the Roman Catholic Church does. I was a member of a Congregational church in New England that was UCC affiliated and as far as I ever saw, there was little philosophical direction between the UCC and my congregation. My congregation was more left-wing than the UCC.

"Wright may be obnoxious but he's not a "bigot." His tolerance for gays, his charity work (30 years working with people in need-- how many years you got?)-- more than makes up for his bombast, in my view."

I wish political types would stop using gay people as their political pawns. I don't want or need Wright's "tolerance". And good deeds do not mitigate loathsome ideology. I don't care if Wright grows wings and in a blaze of golden glory resurrects Obama's campaign from the dead (a feat indeed). He's still a racist, a demagogue, a divider of men in the name of the Gospels and, perhaps worst of all, a loud-mouthed moron.

p.s. Hoosier Daddy: At least tax-and-spend liberals aren't funding tax cuts and a war ON CREDIT TO THE BANK OF CHINA. The Bush administration has taken a lien out on the future prosperity of the country for short term gain.

The $44 trillion of unfunded social security and medicare liabilities has been accumulating for DECADES under many administrations. Is the Bush fiscal policy a disaster? You bet it is. But both Dem's and Repub's haven't common sense enough to see we are a train wreak waiting to happen.

Last time I mentioned the $44 trillion liabilities someone said that it did not take into consideration IRA assests. EBRI 2006 statistics show the amount of total assets in IRA and private sector contribution plans is an estimated $7.5 trillion. Taxes collected would be a drop in the bucket.

I should concede the point, Jeremiah Wright is clearly the PLO, Al Qaeda, and David Duke rolled into one. Before he blows children up, he takes care to blow their minds first by mocking their regional accent while suggesting that even though they are white they possess a specific ethnicity. Then him and Barack rub the children's remains on their faces and perform muslim voodoo rituals, cursing whitey and playing basketball while listening to rap music.

p.s. Hoosier Daddy: At least tax-and-spend liberals aren't funding tax cuts and a war ON CREDIT TO THE BANK OF CHINA. The Bush administration has taken a lien out on the future prosperity of the country for short term gain. Your ideology finds no reflection in the Republican way of governing.

I hate to tell you this but before there were tax and spend liberals and we were still selling debt. Instead of financing a war in Iraq we were financing a war on poverty and drugs here at home. Forty years later and we still have poverty and drugs and created generations of couch potatoes waiting for the next taxpayer funded check. So please do act as if all of the sudden China is financing the US. They along with the Japanese and the Saudis have been buying our debt for decades.

Not trying to be a prick but wake the heck up son. Our $9 trillion dollar debt (not counted Medicare & SSN) didn't happen in the last 7 1/2 years.

Well that certainly tell us, doesn't it?! We are all chastened by your sharply-whittled riposte, franglosaxon! Any criticism of the toxic views of a black man is, of course, racism! I guess we really are all racists here! Don the hoods! Slather the crosses in Sterno! Put the Dixie cylinder on the Victrola!

Which reminds me: Do Catholics resent reference to the Protestant work ethic?

I for one, don't.

Protestant cultures are usually more industrious than Catholic ones. But then Catholic countries usually are jollier than Protestant ones, and I would hope other Christians wouldn't be offended by that either.

Ralph wrote:

"No, they're much the same. Bush is the anti-Clinton."

The narrative is like this -- Clinton is personally slick, Bush has corporate slickness (the kind which allows substitutes to be slick for him), but is Obama slick?

Actually, if he were, he'd be more approachable. The problem with Obama is that he may be slick, but he comes across as standoffish.

I should concede the point, Jeremiah Wright is clearly the PLO, Al Qaeda, and David Duke rolled into one.

No he's simply a race baiting pig who has made a shit ton of money in a nation he clearly despises all the while living in a nice gated community among the very white power structure he says is keeping his fellow brothas down.So I guess you can chalk up hypocrite as well.

I love it. The stuttering. Wow. And choosing words carefully. Must mean you have something to hide. Of course. Everyone who wants to carefully articulate precisely what they mean is ipso facto being devious. Speaking sloppily is the true hallmark of honesty.

I love all the white people here broadcasting their paranoid fears of being oppressed by black liberation theology. BTW, it's actually true that Obama isn't a theologian. Pass it along.

Black liberation theology isn't a threat to the country or our liberties. Having a president whose membership, while he was in Chicago, in a church whose pastor was a disciple of black liberation theology isn't a threat to the country. He made the ideological break now because Wright wanted to put his ideas at odds with Obama's theme of uniting the country. Did he make it clear that he had such an agenda before? Did Obama?

I think everyone here who sees Obama as a threat should explain why they think his campaign is a sham or worse because of this. Where is the evidence behind all the innuendo and sound-bites strategically selected from a decades-long career? This is just a modern reactionary iteration expressed by the same sorts of people who thought Kennedy would institute the pope's agenda. And Simon might want to look into that idea of how holding two (or more) different ideas in one's head is actually a sign of intelligence. Other than scientists, only someone very far removed from reality believes they're in the business of discerning absolute, unmitigated truth of the zero-sum game variety. This would include pundits and hyper-partisans who readily admit their lack of objectivity. A good industry for them it's been, but it's they, not Obama who reveal their shortcomings on understanding how to unify a country.

The funny thing is, their fears - real or affected - don't even go beyond expressing anything other than innuendo. At least anti-Kennedy nativists might have plausibly feared an overly papist direction by the administration in the Oval Office. Does anyone credibly believe, including those crying wolf over Wright, that Obama would use Black Liberation Theology at the expense of the country, to tear the country apart? What paranoia. Give me a break!

Montana Urban Legend said..."Simon might want to look into that idea of how holding two (or more) different ideas in one's head is actually a sign of intelligence."

The capacity to hold more than one idea at once is indeed a sign of intelligence. The capacity to hold two or more mutually contradictory beliefs at one time is called doublethink, and it is not regarded nearly so highly.

As to Obama's claims on "unifying the country" - lots of luck. I think Amba had it exactly right - you can't bring two sides together while being a partisan for either. Obama's record (and his less high-flown rhetoric, for that matter) establish beyond any dobt that he's a partisan for one side. And that's okay - I don't hold that against Clinton. But I do hold it against Obama when he pretends to be what he is not. Cf. my 9:31 AM comment above.

I find it curious the way in which you define authenticity in partisanship and political identity, Simon. The Hillary the Hawk/Hillary the Price Control Advocate combo might be an authentic creation. I don't see why it's any more deserving of respect than Obama's willingness to stake out a position that may seem more veiled partisan to some people, less velied partisan to many others.

Small Business Web DesignerWriting servicesSome Scandinavian trees survived the last Ice Age, challenging a widely held notion that they were killed off by the huge ice sheet that covered the region.Modern trees in Scandinavia were thought to descend from species that migrated north when the ice melted 9,000 years ago

Etobicoke Homes for SalesofasThe US government says it will continue its case against BP over the Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill despite a deal the company reached on Friday with the largest group of private claimants.

Holiday apartments in Madeira Funchalextreme airThis “switchability” is what makes these ferroelectric crystals highly sought after for the likes of liquid-crystal displays. The researchers who discovered this strange effect - Yuanming Liu and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle and the University of Boston - usually work on synthetic materials like these to build energy harvesting and storage devices. But Liu knew that other unexpected electrical phenomena had been found in bone and other biological substances. And ferroelectricity was reported last year in the hard mineral coating of seashell. Li wondered whether soft biological tissues like blood vessels might show the effect too.

roofing Portland ORAugenklinikAll the same, tissue ferroelectricity could be handy. If Liu is right to suspect that ferroelectricity can influence the way blood vessels take up fats, sugars or lipids, then switching it with an applied electric field might help to combat cardiovascular conditions that result from build-up, such as thrombosis and atherosclerosis. If true, then what seems like an esoteric phenomenon could help tackle conditions that kill millions of people worldwide every year

Catering Atlantarolex pro hunter replicaThe remaining members of the Monkees are unlikely to attend Davy Jones's funeral this week out of respect for his family, his former bandmate Micky Dolenz reveals.

custom packagingflangesThe remains of what may be a previously unknown human species living just 11,500 years ago are identified in southern China, although the science team behind the discovery is stopping short of a formal classification